Nearly everyone is talking about the four Democrats threatening to filibuster the health care bill – Joe Lieberman, Blanche Lincoln, Mary Landrieu and Ben Nelson – is using the algebra of how the voters will react. For example, TPM says of Landrieu…

Her constituency is very broad, she’s mindful of the warnings of industry, she has leverage, and she’s using it. But…she was just re-elected. It’s almost inconceivable that her vote on health care in late 2009/early 2010 will matter very much when she’s up for re-election in 2014. Strictly on political terms, she should be a company Democrat right now, though it’s unclear if the political consideration is all that’s driving her decision-making on the issue.

Hmm. Yeah. Quite a mystery. Why WOULD that Mary Landrieu ever want to stop the Public Option? I wonder what could POSSIBLY be driving her decision making on the issue. I wonder….could it be….SATAN?

According to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, Sen. Landrieu has raised $1,668,693 from health care and insurance interests throughout her federal political career.

Of the $1,668,693 in health care and insurance money Sen. Landrieu has raised, just 36% came from in state donors, with 64% coming from out of state interests.

This health care bill is a bonanza for the insurance industry. They are fine with it passing…as long as there’s no Public Option. If a Public Option is created, they know it’s a toehold towards Single Payer. Not much of one but WITHOUT the Public Option, this bill is a straight giveaway with very few downsides. The Opt-Out and Trigger water it down enough where it MAY be safe for them but this is the Insurance Industry we’re dealing with. They hate risk.

Given all that pressure, I’m not sure what will sway more than a couple of the holdouts.

The rule of law is the rule of law, and the laws of war are just that. These are the laws that keep us civilized and hold us accountable. No one is above these laws, and no one should be … as much as anyone would like to wish their own culpability away.

However, in this country each person has the right to a fair and speedy trial whomever they are or for whatever they stand accused. It is for these reasons I love my country, and appreciate how hard those who do battle on my behalf work – whether it be on the literal battlefield or a court of law or in a city council meeting.

But, now is the time when this retired and deceased Army Master Sergeant’s daughter must – along with every other liberal patriot, and perhaps every other liberal soldier – face stinging allegations of being lovers of terrorism, face charges of supporting those who would do us harm, and (most ridiculously) hear the ignorant charges of ‘treason,’ which not only is factually incorrect, but insulting.

Taking politics personally is what destroys constructive discourse, and refusing to have a civil debate without hurling accusations at another who not only likely understands what our civil servants and soldiers endure, but also may directly know how it affects their families is uncalled for, and sad.

In a perfect world, we know the outcome of all things. In a perfect world, we know every little pain someone is enduring in order to provide the appropriate response or assistance. In a perfect world, the intentions of the accused are known, and justice is always served.

We do not live in a perfect world. We live in a complicated-shades-of-gray-world, where little is what it seems and where we don’t know the whole story. Have patience with each other. Let each of the accused stand trial, and let them be punished or proved innocent according to the law.

That said, each and every male influence on my life in my family has been in the military, and when you call me a ‘terrorist lover’ or anything nearing that description because I prefer to adhere to the rules of law, when each of these men helped to shape who I am today, you are using fighting words …. make no mistake, I AM MY FATHER’S DAUGHTER … that sort of talk is unacceptable from either side.

P.S. Oh, also, Mr. President please release those who are being held without charge to the country of their origin. Thx.

Very interesting blog post on the KSM conundrum – “…what to do with KSM. Clearly, this new administration can not follow in the footsteps of its predecessor, lest it fall victim to the same fate. But the people still demand justice. So what are you going to do? Another military tribunal that goes nowhere, or do you scratch that idea and take it to a federal court as America has always done for these type of terrorism cases in the first place? (see Ramzi Yousef; see also Zarcarias Moussaoui; see also Jose Padilla).”

Very great take on “Precious” from a religious point of view. H/T Melissa Harris-Lacewell (@harrislacewell). “…if churches don’t see their need of the Precious living on their block. Not if we realize that our single garment of destiny has no hem without her. Not if we miss opportunities to have truth-telling break the demonic silences in our midst. This movie is one that bears theological weight upon the issue of real presence in the world, and the one scene featuring the inadequacy of the church-as-institution is one worth mulling over. For if we refuse Precious, have we not refused the gift of our Lord?”

Toobin on KSM: “Leval has confidence in the ability of the American judicial system to dispense justice even in a case as difficult as this one. ‘You have to be very careful in jury selection, ask the right questions, identify the jurors who will be fair,’ he said. ‘Judges and juries can be protected. I don’t see any reason why the system can’t handle this (KSM) case.’”

As per usual, Harris-Lacewell’s gripping interpretation of racial and feminist politics: “At the turn of the century many public reformers held African American women particularly accountable for the “degenerative conditions” of the race. Black women were blamed for being insufficient housekeepers, inattentive mothers, and poor educators of their children. Because women were supposed to maintain society’s moral order, any claim about rampant disorder was a burden laid specifically at women’s feet.”